Cross‐cultural Variations in Relationship Rules

Abstract

A British study of the informal rules of 22 social relationships was replicated among Japanese, Hong Kong and Italian samples. Subjects were asked to rate the importance of 33 common and varylng numbers of relationship-specific rules to each of these relationships on a 9-point bipolar scale. Multivariate analyses showed each culture has a structure of highly endorsed rules, although a number of cross-cultural differences emerged in the nature of these rules, particularly those relating to intimacy. Certain cross-cultural predictions were confirmed.Requests for reprints should be sent to M. Argyle, Task Interpersonal -Providing rewards e.g., should g v e e.g., should volunteer emotional support help Avoiding conflicts c.g., should not be e.g., should cooperate jealous of other relationships over shared environmentIt is useful to distuigsh between friendship and other bonds, where the relationship is primary and there is little or no task, and working relationships, in which the task is primary. Even here, however, the social relationships or 'secondary system' as Homans (1950) called it, are very important. M. Argyle el al. / Cultural variations in relationship rules289 Argyle et al. (1985) examined rules over a range of relationships, varying from the highly intimate, such as husband-wife, to taskfocussed relations, such as doctor-patient or teacher-pupil. These included friendship, hierarchical and peer work relationships, neighbours, dating and cohabiting, kin and inlaws, to conflict relations with a disliked individual. Males and females in two age groups were asked to rate the importance of the rules to these relationships on a bipolar scale ranging from 'Rule very important' through 'Rule does not apply' to 'Opposite of stated rule very important'.Four main findings emerged. First, all relationships were characterised by a structure of highly endorsed rules, and there was a consensus across subjects on what these rules were. Second, certain rules were highly endorsed across more than half of the relationships. These were termed ' universal rules', and dealt with respecting privacy eye contact, not disclosing confidences, sexual activity, public criticism and repaying debts or favours. Third, in all task-focussed relationships, task-related rules were endorsed more highly than interpersonal rules, with the exception of some of the 'universal' rules described above. Fourth, cluster analysis of the ratings of all 33 general rules gave two distinct clusters of relationships: intimate, comprising spouses, family, friends and heterosexual relations; and non-intimate including work, professional and service relationships, neighbours and conflict relations. The main discriminating rules dealt with ritual exchange, expressing affection, and requesting help of the other person.The universal rules dealing with privacy and disclosing confidences tend to be maintenance rules, as expected. These operate to maintain the relationship regardIess of the type of relationship. In intimate relationships there are more rules abou...

Preadolescents' understanding and reasoning about asylum seeker peers and friendships

“…For example, the cultural meanings of friendship and the norms and values guiding friendship behavior may differ (e.g. Argyle, Henderson, Bond, Izuka & Contarello, 1986). Additionally, there can be religious differences as well as differences in tradition and language.…”

Investigating the cross-cultural validity of DSM-5 autism spectrum disorder: Evidence from Finnish and UK samples

“…(p. 48) Social conventions and expectations differ according to culture, with even geographically proximate cultures showing important differences in the way social life is understood and conducted (e.g. Argyle et al, 1986). It is reasonable to hypothesise that the manifestations of ASD may vary according to the sociocultural context in which the disorder presents.…”

Ethnicity and emotional support in same‐sex friendship: A comparison of Asian‐Americans, African‐Americans, and Euro‐Americans

“…Individuals within collectivist cultures emphasize the views, needs, and goals of one or two "in-groups"-like family and friends-over their own views, needs, and goals (Goodwin & Lee, 1994;Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). According to Argyle, Henderson, Bond, Iizuka, and Contarello (1986), the Eastern emphasis on collectivism manifests itself in communication that is subtle, indirect, highly contextual, and relatively non-expressive. A number of empirical studies support this claim.…”